From: "Brian McBride" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
> Peter Crowther wrote:
>
> > > LL of course, could be encoded in RDF, but that is not the
> > > same thing as it 'being' RDF.
> >
> > Brian, can I ask how you would encode such a language in RDF yet prevent
it
> > from being RDF --- or, at least, being mis-interpreted as RDF by a
> > non-LL-aware agent? I guess I'm taking issue with the 'of course' in
the
> > above paragraph; I think that encoding process needs clarification.
>
> Now I wish I hadn't included that paragraph. I included it only to try
> to head off any confusion between extension and encoding.
>
> I'd like to focus on my main question though. What are the relative
> merits of 'extending' RDF v designing a new language for
> expressing rules which operate on ground facts expressed in RDF.
If you look at the axioms of how the internet works:
{
[1] Anybody can say anything about anything at any particular time
=>
[2] Any agent can read and collect anybody's statements at any particular
time
}
then I don't think that there would be any practical difference between RDF
and LL.
The statements that transform a graph that is supposidly RDF to one that is
LL are the statements that define the arc labels. But any agent will
encounter and collect such statements at no particular time and in no
particular order and such a collection is in no way guaranteed to be
complete. In fact were LL to be flexiable and evolvable, then the
completeness of LL is undefined, and it's distinctness from RDF is
completely fuzzy.
Me thinks you attempt to draw a distinction that doesn't make any sense on
the Internet. Attempting to make such a distinction is to attempt to climb
a slippery slope. Why bother?
Seth Russell